Obama Wins North Carolina Decisively; Late Night Drama Clinton Squeaks To Indiana Victory
Senator Barack Obama won a commanding victory in the North Carolina primary on Tuesday and inched well within 20,000 votes of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana, where the outcome of the primary came down to a large county outside Chicago that had yet to completely report its votes.
Regardless of who prevails in Indiana, the night’s results injected a boost of momentum into Mr. Obama’s campaign and assured that Mr. Obama would widen his lead in pledged delegates, providing him with new ammunition as he seeks to persuade Democratic leaders to coalesce around his campaign. He also increased his lead in the popular vote in winning North Carolina by more than 200,000 votes.
“Don’t ever forget that we have a choice in this country,” Mr. Obama said in an address in Raleigh, N.C., that carried the unity themes of a convention speech. “We can choose not to be divided; that we can choose not to be afraid; that we can still choose this moment to finally come together and solve the problems we’ve talked about all those other years in all those other elections.”
The slow-motion pace of Tuesday’s vote count in Lake County, just outside Chicago, injected a note of late-night drama into the Indiana race. As late as 11:45 p.m. Eastern time, no votes had been reported from the county, which is seen as a stronghold for the Obama camp and home to a large black population.
Shortly after 12:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the county had reported about 56 percent of its vote, and those results brought Mr. Obama within 17,000 votes of Mrs. Clinton.
Union County, a small rural district in the eastern part of the state with a large white population, had also not reported by early Wednesday morning.
In winning North Carolina by 14 percentage points, Mr. Obama - whose campaign had been embattled by controversy over the incendiary remarks of his former pastor - recorded his first primary victory in nearly two months. His campaign was preparing to open a new front in his battle with Mrs. Clinton, intensifying the argument to uncommitted Democratic superdelegates that he weathered a storm and that the time was dawning for the party to concentrate on the general election.
But as Mrs. Clinton addressed her supporters at a rally in Indianapolis on Tuesday evening, it was clear the fight was not over. In the first three minutes of her address, she asked supporters to contribute money, saying, “Tonight, I need your help to continue this journey.”
Clinton advisers acknowledged that the results of the primaries were far less than they had hoped, and said they were likely to face new pleas even from some of their own supporters for her to quit the race. They said they expected fund-raising to become even harder now; one adviser said the campaign was essentially broke, and several others refused to say whether Mrs. Clinton had loaned the campaign money from her personal account to keep it afloat.
The advisers said they were dispirited over the loss in North Carolina, after her campaign - now working off a shoestring budget as spending outpaces fund-raising - decided to allocate millions of dollars and full days of the candidate and her husband in the state. Even with her investment, Mr. Obama outspent Mrs. Clinton in both states.
Six hours after the polls closed in Indiana, the race remained too close to call. Results from Lake County - home to the city of Gary, just across the state line from Chicago - had not been reported. The delay meant that Mrs. Clinton did not appear on television until well after Mr. Obama, allowing him to put his stamp of victory on the evening.
With six primaries remaining on the Democratic primary calendar, the fight between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton now turns to Washington. The Obama campaign was poised to present a new cache of superdelegates - the party officials who may have to settle the nominating fight - as early as Wednesday to press its case that the results from Tuesday are reason enough to back his candidacy and end the torturous nominating fight.
In his speech, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, congratulated Mrs. Clinton “for what appears to be her victory in the state of Indiana.” Then, he used his televised forum to deliver a speech highlighting how he was likely to come under attack. In doing so, he made an argument for his viability in a general election, which his rivals believe has been damaged because of his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who made a series of incendiary comments about America.
“Yes, we know what’s coming; I’m not naïve,” Mr. Obama said, adding, “The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states; blue-collar and white-collar; white, black, brown; young, old; rich, poor.”
“This is what they will do, no matter which one of us is the nominee,” he added. “The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they’ll run; it’s what kind of campaign we will run.”
Democrats said they expect to see more superdelegates flow to Mr. Obama in the next few days, including perhaps some now aligned with Mrs. Clinton.
Senator Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter from Missouri, called the results “a big, big night” for Mr. Obama given the Wright episode. “This shows he can take major blows and kind of rise above it,” Ms. McCaskill said. “I think there was a sense that she has some momentum, and I think it has just ground to a screeching halt tonight.”
Despite Mrs. Clinton’s performance, she pledged to take her campaign to West Virginia, Kentucky and the other states remaining on the primary calendar. And the campaign has been pushing the cause of seating disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan, states that were penalized for holding primaries before party rules allowed.
“You know it seems, it would be a little strange to have a nominee chosen by 48 states,” she told her supporters in Indianapolis. “We’ve got a long road ahead, but were going to keep fighting on that path because America is worth fighting for.”
The Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee will convene on May 31 to settle the issue of whether to seat the delegates from those two states.
Going forward, both candidates intend to spend time in Washington, courting superdelegates and party officials.
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, said the candidate accomplished what he needed to by outperforming expectations in both states and showing that Mr. Wright was not driving off voters en masse.
“The next question will be what happens with the undecided superdelegates,” he said. “Will they begin to come his way? I don’t see anything to suggest they should start going her way.”
In North Carolina, Mr. Obama’s performance was bolstered by a strong black vote. He captured more than 90 percent of those voters in that state, where blacks accounted for one in three voters. But over all, Mrs. Clinton continued to draw strong support among whites, particularly older women.
The voting in Indiana and North Carolina came at the conclusion of an acrimonious two-week campaign that found Mr. Obama on the defensive over incendiary remarks by Mr. Wright. Yet there was little evidence either argument caused significant shifts in electoral patterns of previous states, with most Clinton voters saying the Wright episode affected their vote and Obama backers saying it did not.
Once again, Mrs. Clinton drew the lion’s share of her support from women and older voters. Mr. Obama held onto his mainstays of support - blacks, young voters and liberals - and made small gains in Indiana with lower-income white voters who have eluded him in the past.
In both states, the candidates’ final arguments centered on a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax, which Mrs. Clinton proposed as an economic lift for voters and Mr. Obama derided as a political gimmick.
At this stage in the nominating fight, most voters seemed to have settled on their preferences before the battle intensified. Only a quarter of voters in Indiana decided whom to support in the last week, and a majority backed Mrs. Clinton, while one in five voters in North Carolina also decided late, and most of them backed Mr. Obama.
The country’s economic condition was listed as the chief concern of the Democratic primary voters. About 9 in 10 voters in Indiana and 8 in 10 voters in North Carolina said the economic slowdown had affected their family at least somewhat.
At least three in five voters in both states said the economy was the most important problem facing the country, according to surveys of voters leaving polling places that were conducted in both states by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press.
In Indiana, about 8 in 10 voters were white and about 15 percent were black. Six in 10 of the whites voted for Mrs. Clinton, while about 9 in 10 blacks favored Mr. Obama.
© 2008 The New York Times
Update: (Wednesday 5/7; 1:15 am) Cable networks CNN, MSNBC, and other outlets call “Apparent” victory for Hillary Clinton in Indiana.
Sorry folks but can I yawn now? Guess who thinks is coming to dinner? Not going to happen,
And to think after all this the decision may come down to the few oligarchic “super delegates”.
Hillary’s speech tonight indicates she ain’t throwing in the towel. A win is a win, and she will continue on with expected wins in WV and KY. Then, there will be Obama victory in Oregon, and probably Montana. Hillary will take Puerto Rico.
Although I wish Obama had it locked up (which he practically does in pledged delgates, popular vote, number of states), the Clintonistas will still push on, and make Florida and Michigan the issue. Watch them blame that mess on Obama. In Florida, the GOP gov & legislature did it. In Michigan, you can say the Dems did it to themselves.
Rush must be happy with Operation Chaos.
About 9 in 10 voters in Indiana and 8 in 10 voters in North Carolina said the economic slowdown had affected their family at least somewhat.
“Focus on the family” they say. That’s to keep Americans myopic about the wider world, the US government’s worldwide rampage, destroying human life, destroying thousand year traditions, destroying public enterprises that best serve the people, destroying labor organizations, destroying land, water and food rights, and destroying the rule of international laws and treaties.
World War Three can break out next and the elites will still be instructing Americans to “focus on the family”. The elites suit themselves very well. Very very well.
There is one campaign raising all the issues being ignored::
For peace, social and economic justice, and human rights.
www.carolmillercongress.com
I just feel relieved. I know it’s still not done, but at least the people are not as dumb as Hillary thought they were.
Ms. Hillary “guns-beer-pickup trucks” Clinton, please… let it go…
Obama is not the perfect candidate, but he is one that can can be worked with. I really do not feel as cynical as I normally do about this.
We have nothing to lose by believing that we can, because the stakes are too high if we can’t.
I’m wondering why no one talks about the fact that Bill Clinton did Rush Limbaugh a favor and filled in for the gasbag when he was sick.
“You may have missed it - almost everyone missed it - but Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh’s show the day of the Texas primary. You can hear the radio here. Limbaugh himself was sick that day, apparently, but he had already urged Republicans to cross over to keep Hillary Clinton in the race. Bill saw an opening - and went there.
Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so.
There also seems little doubt that Republican mischief played a real role in affecting the results. And they call Obama’s call for them to release their tax returns a tactic worthy of Ken Starr. I repeat: the chutzpah and the cynicism just leave you speechless. And as you find it impossible to do much but splutter, the Clintons plow on with new self-serving lies.” — Andrew Sullivan
http://themoderatevoice.com/media/talk-radio/rush-limbaugh/18313/bill-clinton-went-on-rush-limbaughs-show-day-of-texas-primary/
This is incredibly sad news. I was hoping there would be some way the Obamaniacs could be stopped. We are stuck with this awful candidate and worse President to be. I’m really sad about this. We are in for four disillusioning years. Democrats are idiots!
Avez courage,Rich and dump the gloom. Obama will provide us the best opening for pushing progressive goals. Cynicism will get us no where.
obama’s chances are just as good as hilliary against mccain….probably better…….i voted for edwards in our primary….after he dropped out …i’m supporting obama…i sense that what people fear is that obama MAY ACTUALLY BE AN EFFECTIVE PRESIDENT……this is for RICH GRIFFIN… ….so under the bush\cheney administration,in 8 LONG YEARS,there has not been any disillusions ?
I was pleased to stay up last night waiting for the Lake County returns in Indiana. Only the combined efforts of Jeremiah Wright and Rush Limbaugh saved Clinton from an embarrassing defeat. Unless Obama commits some terrible, career-ending blunder or dies of a heart attack, he will be the Democratic nominee. I very much doubt the superdelegates will give it to Clinton after last night.
So you think Mr. Obama is the “answer?”
Read this:
“Obama’s Money Cartel”
http://www.counterpunch.com/martens05052008.html
And this:
“The Obama Bubble Agenda”
http://www.counterpunch.com/
He just is not the guy we want to believe he is.
to HOYTDOUGLAS…………..MCCAIN is not the guy who you think he is and HILLIARY is not the woman who you think she is……..OBAMA is a better answer than they are….this is about the fierce urgency of now…mccain still has his cold war mentality…and hilliary still talking about the past glory days of the 1990’s…we are in a new century…time for different thinking and different ideas…can we give it a CHANCE ?
I’m so unhappy with Obama supporters - I wish they could be reached and could be made to understand what a terrible politician he really is. I wish they would READ his actual positions! Listen to his words more carefully. This is a sad day. However, it is still possible that we can have a brokered convention and the cult of Obama can be stopped once and for all, before the real damage is done and he actually becomes President. For those of you who actually think he will help with progressive causes, you have lost your minds!
HoytDouglas, you need to find more credible sources. try truthout or tompaine. you go too far underground and you can find articles that have proof that Bob Hope was an alien….check out Stew Webb for fun, he swears the Bush Crime Family meets in a castle in Colorado once a year to eat live babies, he has proof too.
Here in Reality is a pretty good source for underground stuff, but probably the most reputable would be Information Clearinghouse…..
And so it drags on…
Early on in this stupid, pointless pissing contest, Hillary made it very clear that if she could not be the Democratic candidate, she would put the US through hell to destroy the Democratic party by dragging her fight with Obama out to the bitter end.
It looks like her plan is working.
The Democratic party is split between two camps, and neither one will shift an inch, blindly supporting their candidate, spitting, fighting tooth and nail to deny the opposition a reasonable chance to fight McCain.
And all the while, when the Democrats could be challenging McCain and his corporate pro-war stance and bellicose nature, McCain is getting a free ride. He has been asked no real questions about the revealed policy of torture that goes to the very heart of the presidency, has not had to face challenges about his ‘100 years of war in Iraq’. Has not been seriously questioned about his time as a POW, and the allegations that he turned on his fellow servicemen.
By the time the dust settles from this protracted Democratic Party cage match, the contest will be over, the election handed to McCain, who will have rightly accused the Democrats of being unable to settle party differences, and therefore not be the most adept party to rule a nation.
Ah,happy am I to be free of the cult of lefty,ideological purism!Obama isn’t perfect but I see him as a step in the right direction. What is all the whinning accomplishing?
Onelove has the upcoming course of the primary season very well analyzed, although you never can tell about states like West Virginia.
As to the prediction that the Clintons will turn to the Michigan and Florida delegations in a last ditch credential fight effort, I find it revealing that Mitt Romney was on the tube this morning (CNN I believe), urging the Democratic Party to embrace that divisive tar baby, and then count Michigan and Florida for Hillary so the good folks in the Great Lakes and Little Havana don’t get disenfranchised. Like Bill palling it up with Rush, politics sure does make for strange bedfellas.
Anybody heard anything on how Indiana’s voter ID law impacted the turnout and counting delays in Gary and Hammond?
Anybody seen any breakdown on whether the GOP crossover vote exceeded Hillary’s slim margin of victory in Indiana?
Onelove is absolutely correct that in Michigan, the Democrats shot themselves in the foot. Barack and Edwards names were not on the ballot, and you spoiled your ballot if you wrote them in. Hillary’s name however mysteriously remained on the ballot, along with only Chris Dodd, Dennis Kuchinich, and “Uncommitted” as your voting options.
Just how anybody is going to blame that end result on the Obama camp is going to be a very neat trick indeed. Also, remember that every time the pundits and spin meisters compare the nationwide popular votes cast for Clinton with those cast for Obama, the Clinton numbers are artificially inflated because Barack got zero here in Michigan, because it was literally impossible to vote for him the way the ballot was structured. Hillary’s 55% statewide margin of victory those bizarre constraints is no big whup. Had the Michigan primary been fairly run, I think Obama would have won here like he did later in Wisconsin.
Bill from Saginaw
Thank you for the Counterpunch.com site…..It has some great articles as does Commondreams……..
Is Barack Obama different?
I got to listen to Zbigniew Brzezinski in a conference call and Anthony Lake at dinner engagement….Both men believe that we should keep our forces in Iraq until there is “Peace”, which is a democrat´s word for “Victory”. Both men are top advisers for Barack Obama and have participated in the creation of an “Enemy Islamic Force” from the late 70´s through the 90´s (After all, Sandy Berger didn´t steal and destroy documents from the National Archives without a good reason.) ……..Yes, “Operation Cyclone” continued well after the Soviet Union was expelled from Afghanistan…..and removal of our forces in Iraq is,”NOW”, not in our “National Security Interests”…..
Barack Obama was the only politician who spoke out against the “Invasion” of Iraq. Therefore he is the only “HOPE” of ending the “Insanity” that has gone on the past seven years: 1. A three trillion dollar invasion and occupation of a country that had done nothing to the United States and was never a threat to the United States, 2. The killing of up 1.2 million Iraqis, 3. The deaths of over 4,000 Americans,
4. The forced removal of over 4 million Iraqis from their homes and into refugee camps, 5. The theft of billions of dollars through fraudulent contracts, 6. The U.S. support of the Sunni Insurgency by bribing their “Tribal Leaders” during “The Surge” even though the Sunnis were the “Insurgents” linked by the U.S. to Al Qaeda and supported and armed by Saudi Arabia and responsible for more U.S. deaths than any group……
Does any of the above make sense?
Yes, if you knew that the plan to invade Afghanistan and Iraq was hatched in 1997 after the Taliban, who had U.S. support, decided to give the “Oil Pipeline Contract” to Bridas Oil Co. of Argentina.
Unfortunately, the National Media was part of the program and when World Trade Center #7 went down and could not be explained without saying, “It had to have been a pre-planned demolition with explosives”, 9/11 became the excuse needed to invade two countries that had nothing to do with the attacks and the National Media helped propagandize for the Neo-Conservative Movement and their idea of “Pax Americana”.
When John McCain gets ushered into the White House, cuts more taxes for the rich, bombs Iran and runs this country into final ruin, we only have Hillary to thank.
Anyone who is elected President of the US has very limited options. He or she has to contend with
a huge garrison state,
social programs torn to shreds (thanks partially to Maestro Clinton),
disassembled regulatory agencies,
gutted or nonexistent environmental, workplace and other forms of protections,
massively privatized social services,
a huge gap between the haves/have-nots,
a politically supported massive outsourcing of good quality jobs,
weak union membership and few laws supporting and protecting union organizing,
a broken constitution,
collapsing public institutions and infrastructure,
a huge national debt,
economic problems beyond the experience of most American’s recent memories,
military incursions, wars and semi-wars, and a heavily enlarged network of military bases, client states and dependencies,
and, last, a population that has been to subjected to continuous propaganda efforts promoting free market fundamentalism, militarism, and the muscular “religion” of Rightwing “Christians” and the constant hate, fear and smear campaigns indulged in by the Rightwing media/foundation/msm complex since the 1980s.
Whomever is elected will have to start with cleaning up horrible mess left by the Bush/Clinon/Bush/Reagan era.
This basic clean-up effort will put any President at risk: physically adn reputationally.
There’s no way they are going to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates when she agreed to keep them out in the first place.
Her only hope as slim as it was, was to win big in both states. Neither happened.
She had to loan herself money again.
She is like a drunk friend at a party making a fool of herself, and people are unwilling to tell her.
My guess is the partygoers will just move into another room and leave her to boast about sniper fire in Bosnia.
Obama may not be the best candidate but he can be an interesting speaker. Like describing McCain as Bush’s third term.
Good one.
They eat LIVE babies?
I never heard that one ~Liberal WithAnAttitude~.
Something to think about from another progressive site, Counterpunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Look for the ‘Obama Bubble’ article.
Here is what I believe, of course we ALL have our beliefs, especially when it comes to politics. But, I’m basing my beliefs on statistics, polls and the voting records of the candidates.
If Obama is the Demo’s choice, He will lose to McCain, ___ no matter who Obama’s VP running mate is.
If Hillary is the Demo’s choice, she will lose to McCain, ___ unless Obama is her VP running mate. ___ A Hillary/Obama ticet will lose however, if Mich and Fla voters are not allowed at the Demo convention.
McCain’s running mate will be whomever he is ordered to have. Maybe Jeb Bush, or Hucksterberry, etc. Lots of possibilities there.
If the Michigan and Florida delegates are not allowed to have a voice at the Demo convention, McCain will be our next president Bush, ___ even if Hillary and Obama are the Demo’s ticket. That’s not confusing if one thinks about it.
When I attempted to edit my previous post, I was blocked by “WORLD PRESS” whoever that is. I get a screen headlined “World Press” and informed that I have entered the wrong ame or password and taht I cannot post a comment.
This happened previously last week and I could not even get back to the Common Dreams site until I had re-booted my computer and erased all cookies and files.
It matters not at all. Pointing out the fact that all of USA Incorporated’s “electable” candidates are on essentially the same sponsorship payroll just doesn’t seem to put even a small dent in the “mainstream” determination to play the game according to the rules of the “greatest democracy on earth”.
I doubt that it ever will — at least not until the ultimate consequences become overwhelmingly and catastrophically clear to even the most dedicated couch potato. On the “brighter” side, that day of reckoning appears to be getting closer very rapidly. It’s going to be one hell of a wake-up call, but I find it increasingly difficult to find much sympathy for the self-created victims.
Quotes from this article:
“Despite Mrs. Clinton’s performance, she pledged to take her campaign to West Virginia, Kentucky and the other states remaining on the primary calendar. And the campaign has been pushing the cause of seating disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan, states that were penalized for holding primaries before party rules allowed.
“You know it seems, it would be a little strange to have a nominee chosen by 48 states,” she told her supporters in Indianapolis. “We’ve got a long road ahead, but were going to keep fighting on that path because America …”
Mrs. Clinton sounds a lot like George W. Bush, when he tells the American People, without blinking an eye, that we are winning when we are losing in Iraq, then he admits to lying because he thinks its good for us. Hillary, please stop. We have become immunized after GWB to that lying brand of politics. That is why we are turning to Obama. We are adults, and we are not afraid of the truth. We want to stop this dysfunction. But, You just don’t get it!
Rich Griffin wrote:
This is incredibly sad news. I was hoping there would be some way the Obamaniacs could be stopped. We are stuck with this awful candidate and worse President to be. I’m really sad about this. We are in for four disillusioning years. Democrats are idiots.
While I share your reservations about Obama (I anticipate he will be an unapologetically moderate and cautious President, if elected), I can’t really share your sadness over the failure of Clinton’s campaign to close the gap.
Were she to be elected, she would be little better than Obama, pursuing the same triangulating approach that her husband pursued and probably more so given the slimness of the Democratic margin that exists in Congress.
Nor are Democrats to blame. She has no one to blame for her failures but her own campaign staff. This has been not only one of the most ineptly run campaigns I’ve ever witnessed (a truly astonishing thing given how Hillary and Bill have built over the past 15 years a very extensive network of support and influence within the party), but it has also revealed Senator Clinton to be every bit the political trimmer her husband was.
One could produce dozens of examples in support of this, the latest of course being her 11th hour support for a gas tax holiday this summer (if Senator Clinton is such a smart candidate and if it was such a great idea, why wasn’t she out promoting it before McCain was stumping for his?).
My favorite moment (but who can pick?) was when, in response to a comment about the fact that nearly every economist has panned the idea as unsound, she replied that she wasn’t going to base her campaign on the advice of economists! Yep, Hillary’s just plain folks and doesn’t need no pointyheads telling her what’s sensible or not! Except of course when she needs to point out which economists think her healthcare proposal is better than Obama’s.
Ridiculous.
So, Rich, I think you’re quite right that Obama will not be the source of the country’s salvation (jeez, it feels odd that one would even have to write such a thing), but you can’t seriously lament the meteoric fall of the Clinton star, can you?!?
If this campaign season has done nothing else, I hope it has snapped the spell of Clintonism among the electorate. The Clinton years (and Clintonism as a political force) have not done the country much good. I say, good riddance.
AND, another thing: I am so proud of the people, both in North Carolina and Indiana, because they show that this country is ready to move forward. Thanks, also to all the young people who clued the older ones, that yes, we can have hope and we can have a better government.
Obama said last night, “Yes, we know what’s coming; I’m not naïve,” Mr. Obama said, adding, “The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states; blue-collar and white-collar; white, black, brown; young, old; rich, poor.”
“This is what they will do, no matter which one of us is the nominee,” he added. “The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they’ll run; it’s what kind of campaign we will run.”
– Superdelegates, are you listening?
Obviously Obama is not perfect, and obviously he still needs scrutiny from the left, as does any politician. However, in my mind this is simple: Obama, of the three big candidates, seems least likely to continue the war, start another war, or turn the Middle East and eventually the world into a hellish wasteland. It’s sad when you have to look at three presidential candidates and make a decision based on the one you think would cause the deaths of the fewest people, but that’s tops on the list in my opinion. I still fear Obama will not totally stop the killing, but I think he will cause the least deaths.
Truth is, Nader is the best candidate. It’s a damn shame that our electoral system is so grossly inaccurate that people, including myself, are afraid to-and feel they can’t, vote for the candidate of their choice (Nader). We need election reform before we can get out of this two corporate party crap. It seems a “democracy” would be interested in the most accurate reflection possible of the people’s will. There are successful models all over the world, Ireland, Switzerland, etc. The math has been done, and our elections do not represent the will of the people.
I think that she does get it- that she has no chance of being the Dim nominee. I hope that they are both sincere in their statements last night that the country must not have a third bush term and that the people will start to unite to accomplish that “no matter who the nominee is”.
We need a de-republicanization~ on a scale to match bush’s “de-baathification” in Iraq.
sLiM wrote:
We need a de-republicanization~ on a scale to match bush’s “de-baathification” in Iraq.
Amen, brother. And that’ll mean that a fair number of Dimocrats will also get swept up in the purge!
Can I get an “Amen”?
Yes- yes you can!
Obama cannot beat McCain. Hillary can. That is the bottom line.
Obama gives fantastic speeches, that won’t cut it in Sept and Oct. The Repugs will destroy him.
Well KEM, we have all got to TRY and make it so! First message first- and that is to send the rethuglicans PACKING.
We who want to see a democrat can try ~SLIM~. Sorry, but the Repugs will have a field day with Obama and that’s the problem, because he really is not what he says he is and they have the ammo to destroy his campaign.
Actually Hillary did not really attack Obama as she could have, and for very good reasons she didn’t do so. ___ The Republicans will.___ Notice I didn’t say they would “obliterate” him.
Stick a fork in the WHORE, (Randi Rhodes was RIGHT) Hillary is done! Obama will destroy Insane McCain in the general with Edwards or Richardson as his running mate. The Clintons should be tarred-and-feathered and run out of the Democratic Party on a rail.
Obama ‘08
I think I will take a close look at the other candidates running for the Presidency other than Republicans and Democrats. Yes, Ralph Nader will be one of the candidates, but I also will consider others. I realize they have slim to no chances of winning, but even if my vote is a minor wimper in the forest, at least I did not support the corporate controlled one-party machine with two political factions.
KEM,
I’m not sure I disagree, but if you mean by this that “Clinton can beat McCain,” I would almost certainly disagree.
I’ve given some of my reasons for this before, but here they are in brief:
1)The Clinton brand name is a powerful galvanizing force for Republicans, especially right-wingers. It would be foolish to try to deny this fact. Hillary Clinton seems to be a source of almost irrational hatred among this faction, despite the fact that the Clinton years saw the DP (through Bill) cozying up to traditional Republican party positions and speaking a discourse that it loves (remember Bill Clinton’s pronouncements on rap music and such?) The RP will unite behind McCain with incredible force.
2)HC enters a general election with a “trustworthiness” rating below 50%; McCain doesn’t. These numbers will go nowhere but down for both candidates, but they hurt her more than Johnny Bomb Bomb (my favorite McCain moniker).
3)She has alienated many people who make up her base. These include faithful DP supporters like MoveOn, whose activist platform she has gone on record as saying she doesn’t like. She has also hurt her standing within the black community, a community with a long tradition of forgiving white Democrats for their numerous failings and abandonment of their concerns (whether or not they should), and without black voters she cannot win. So peeing on your base is a bad idea.
4)She has gotten this far largely on the strength of support from white, working-class voters and the elderly. I predict many in the first group (the so-called Reagan Democrats) will defect to Johnny Bomb Bomb in the fall, especially if he can present a serious presidential face to the public and assure them that he is not a nutjob out to remake the world like George W. Shrub.
5)Her campaign staff appears to be the most inept bunch of bunglers I’ve ever seen. How they managed to take her from being (at the start of the whole race to the nomination) from being the presumed nominee of her party to struggling to beat a first-term Senator is astonishing. Seriously, in the annals of political punditry this has to go down as one of the worst run campaigners in recent memory. So you can expect more of the same if she is the DP nominee.
I’ll stop there. The letters on the wall–writ so large that HC can’t see them because she’s too close–say “Hillary Clinton can’t beat McCain.”
She can and WILL win ONLY IF Obama is the VP choice and the Mich and Fla delegates are allowed to vote at the convention ERIC. Any other option will insure McCain is our next Bush.
Bill Clinton, lecher-pervert and closet racist, made a derogatory remark about future president Barack Obama. Clinton said something to the effect that Obama should be running on the fact that he hasn’t stolen a car “YET.” No wonder Clinton’s face is so red; mine would be too, if I made such a dumb statement.
Rush Limbaugh is the Clinton’s new best friend.
“You may have missed it - almost everyone missed it - but Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh’s show the day of the Texas primary. You can hear the radio here. Limbaugh himself was sick that day, apparently, but he had already urged Republicans to cross over to keep Hillary Clinton in the race. Bill saw an opening - and went there.
Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so.
There also seems little doubt that Republican mischief played a real role in affecting the results. And they call Obama’s call for them to release their tax returns a tactic worthy of Ken Starr. I repeat: the chutzpah and the cynicism just leave you speechless. And as you find it impossible to do much but splutter, the Clintons plow on with new self-serving lies.
You know how I realized this? I saw first hand the way they dealt with gay issues in their first term. They didn’t just wimp out on our push for marriage equality, they actively pivoted off homophobia to get a few points (ask Dick Morris; it’s one of the things he’s actually ashamed of in retrospect). The Clintons even put anti-gay ads on Christianist radio stations in the South to build support for the 1996 re-election. And they continue to show up at gay events claiming to be avatars for our civil rights. And the stupid gays still believe them!” — Andrew Sullivan
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/clinton-went-on.html
The article stated about Hillary Clinton that “In the first three minutes of her address, she asked supporters to contribute money…” That fits well with a striking contrast I’ve noticed between her campaign and that of Barack Obama.
That contrast is clear if you alternately enter each candidate’s name on Google. In both cases you will find a link to the official campaign website at the top of the page where sponsored (paid for) links are placed by the search engine. Click on the links and notice the difference between the pages that show up for each one.
Here is how they have been since I first looked many months ago. On Senator Obama’s website, you find an invitation to sign up for campaign events and volunteer opportunities. On Senator Clinton’s site, you find a request asking for money (in categories up to $4,600) with a form to enter credit card information.
This difference, which I read as “I invite you, in partnership, to get involved” vs. “Give me your money and trust me” reflects an essential difference between these two good people. For me, one inspires participation in the political system as equals; the other suggests a more paternal perspective, a subtle, though well meaning, sense of superiority.
I’m quite aware that, once someone signs up on either site, they will receive a steady flow of requests for financial contributions. But I still think it is quite telling what each campaign felt important enough to be the first thing someone sees when they reach out to the candidate.
Wow, there are a lot of uncertainties to that scenario. I thought we were talking about the candidates sans VP choice.
What about if she were Obama’s VP choice, etc etc? (not that I think either of these options has a snowball’s chance in hell of coming to pass, mind you)
correction: “Bill Clinton MADE a derogatory remark….”
The Clintons have followed a scortched-earth strategy to the nomination ever since their numbers started slipping. If I never hear the names Clinton or Bush again in my lifetime, it will be too soon. The damage done to the Democratic Party and to any progressive agenda in general by the Republican-Lite Clintons is immeasurable and catastrophic. It is time for a massive purge of failed conservative policies, ideologies and polititians, and the Clintons are at the top of that list.
KEM… we’ll see in november who will win….MCCAIN OR OBAMA….mccain can’t even extend his lead over either HILLIARY OR OBAMA even though they are in the middle of a SLUGFEST…..we’ll see who MCCAIN REALLY IS….FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP…remmeber that slogan from the repubs ?
The three main voter groups pushing Obominable are racial-affinity voting blacks, easily-stampeded and trend-sucking 18-24 year-olds, and Obamicans (Republicans, independents and right-wing Democrats who want a Republican president who’s not a member of the Republican party).
This new Democratic coalition must be a dream-come-true for the Republicans, whose own coalition of corporate stooges, white racists and anti-abortionists has fallen apart this election season.
Obominable would be the weakest Democratic candidate in the general election. If he gets the Democratic nomination the electoral-vote math indicates that McSame will be the next president. If McSame stumbles for any reason the Republicans would still get Obominable, who’s foreign-policy and pro-business domestic agendas are almost identical to McSame’s.
We can hope that the Democratic delegates will see the electoral-vote light at the convention in August and give Hillary the nomination. Unfortunately the pro-war, pro-business party elite are still backing Obominable, so it could be a tough fight. Isn’t it ironic that Hillary Clinton turns out to be the most left-wing Democrat in the race?
Sadly, if McSame beats Obominable in the fall the very groups who will have stupidly engineered the debacle, and are themselves responsible for it, already have their excuse ready to go: blame Hillary.
BOB K ……you sound ridiculous…”racial affinity voting blacks” when was the last time afro-americans had a viable candidate run for president ? in the 1976 election who did the VAST majority of BLACKS vote for ? JIMMY CARTER….IN 1980 election who did the VAST majority of BLACKS vote for ? JIMMY CARTER… in every election since …forever…. MILLIONS of BLACKS have voted for WHITE MEN…..IN 1988 it was DUKAKIS in 1992\1996 it was BILL CLINTON..IN 2000 it was AL GORE IN 2004 it was JOHN KERRY….BLACKS have supported white male democrats overwhelmingly…so there is no affinity voting going on…..
I would have to agree with Eric regarding either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama accepting a VP role on the other’s team. It might have been possible and even desirable a couple of months ago, but there has been too much said and done now to permit such an alliance.
Sen. Obama has made repeated statements regarding the need to “turn the page” on the bush Klan and the Clintons. He claims that she is a Washington “insider” which is anathema to his mantra for change, although this begs the question of what is his status in Washington, if not an insider as well.
There is no reason for Sen. Obama to even consider playing Judy to Sen. Clinton’s Punch. As he noted earlier, HE is the frontrunner.
They have extended the conflict so long that now, if either one was to assume the VP role for the other, it would (further) detract from their credibility rather than serve to unite their respective factions.
I do think that she will have a strong influence on who he picks for his VP in exchange for assistance with campaign debt relief. Then, it’s back to the senate for Mrs. Clinton, for a couple of years anyway (oh, say about 3 or 4?!).
Then the public will be faced with an extremely LONG summer, filled with CRAP and lacking any real substance, in the psuedo drama that will be the campaign between McSame and Obama.
Picture it- McSame stumbling about and mispeaking his positions so that others can manage him with their interpretations of what he REALLY means while SpeechObama issues pretty platitudes with no substance and DebateObama remains unable to put two words together before changing over to Hope and Change sound bites, as Michelle Obama stands by at the ready to direct and control her husband’s image and obfuscate HER agenda.
sLiM’s got the right measure of it. A union between these two would look very strange to potential voters at this point (at least if they’ve paid any attention to the sniping that has gone on thus far).
I’d be very interested in your speculation, sLiM, on the possible influence HRC might exert on Obama’s VP choice. Who do you see her pushing/pulling for?
My own thoughts have turned on whether Obama will seriously court Edwards for VP in order to make stronger inroads into the white, working-class and rural voters who thus far have backed Clinton. If Edwards had hung in there, I’m convinced that she would have seen far fewer of these voters flocking to her.
Just a thought.
No, please, don’t even THINK about Shillary as VP. She’s done enough damage already. Besides, as power mad, ambitious, and craven as the Clintons are, they’d probably hire a hit man to off Obama.
Please, Obama, wear a bullet-proof vest and have plenty of bodyguards around. We don’t want another MLK event. These neocons are criminally insane.
It would be more like an RFK or JFK event than an MLK event.
Yep ~JLOVER~ I agree, we will see in November.
I sure don’t want to see McCain in the White House. Oh my God, we might wish Bush were still there. They’re both stupid, but Bush isn’t senile too. We cannot have another four years, or even two years of Bushism.
As to Hillary beng VP to Obama? I’m sure that he won’t have it. He cannot beat MCain. That opinion based upon several things.
1. Obama did NOT win in the states which are (absolutely necessary) to win in the general election.
2. OVER 70% of the Hillary suporters say they will NOT vote for Obama if he’s the Demo nominee. Over 70%!! and another 12% say if he’s the Demo nominee, they won’t even bother to vote at all.
3. Most credible polls show that if Obama is the Demo nominee, he will lose handily to McCain. They also show Hillary will easily beat McCain.
4. Obama has been less than honest about many things concerning his campaign ads, etc. In spite of what many state, Clinton has not attacked most of those serious items. McCain and the Republcans WILL and Obama will not look good at all. ___ Wait and see. The Republicans are lots better at what they term “Rat Fu##ing” than the Dems are.
Are polls accurate? They sometimes are not, and seldom even 98% correct, but they usually are pretty darn close and most often they pick the winner. Obama is not close enough to McCain in the polls to overcome even a 3% margin of error.
Hillary leads by over 8% against McCain and she has won in the states necessary to win in the general. ‘IF’ Obama is her VP choice they will win, if not,___ we ALL lose.
jlover —
You say: “there is no [racial] affinity voting going on…..”
Read the article above. It states that:
“In North Carolina, Mr. Obama’s performance was bolstered by a strong black vote. He captured more than 90 percent of those voters in that state.”
“In Indiana . . . about 9 in 10 blacks favored Mr. Obama.”
I think that Edwards would be an excellent choice- but I wonder if he would be willing based on recent statements regarding a VP position. [I was originally way for Kucinich, then Edwards after Dennis dropped out.]
I am watching (in disbelief or amazement or something) as Sen. Clinton now comes to the media saying that if the rules were the same as in the Rethug Party, she would all ready be the nominee and therefore is not bowing out, blah blah blah. Wow- she DOES have chutzbuh (sp?) and its REALLY getting old.
There has got to be some backroom politicking going on right now…
The new polls show both Obama and Shillary equal against Insane McSame, and the difference will be who Obama chooses as his running mate. McCain can’t win.
Obama ‘08
No, MikeBinSC —
Current polls in all 50 states show that Hillary is ahead of McCain by 55 electoral votes, and more importantly, she is carrying all three of the big-three swing states — Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obominable is ahead of McCain by 1 electoral vote, and he is losing two of the three critical big-three swing states.
Not only can McCain win, the electoral-vote math shows he is likely to win if Obominable is the Democratic nominee.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May07.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May07.html
You can look at any polls you like, but everything will change once Hillary is officially out of the race and Obama picks a running mate. There is no path for McCain to get a third Bush term in the White House.
“You know it seems, it would be a little strange to have a nominee chosen by 48 states,” Clinton told her supporters in Indianapolis
It is also a little strange to have a primary with only HER name on the ballot, in violation of the rules
Shrillary must be working for the McCain camp….if she can’t be president, then NO Democrat can be president.
So then, there are no “new polls” showing Obominable and Hillary “equal against Insane McSame?” Nice.
I believe you are wrong MIKE, wish you weren’t, but you are wishful thinking. If Obama is the nomnee, he will be toasted by the Repubs.
The Dem Party has only two choices. It must abide by its decision not to seat delegates from Florida or Michigan, or it must have a do-over primary or caucus in those states, and it is fast becoming too late for the last choice.
KEM,
You might very well be right about all this, but I’m fairly certain about one thing: neither of them can consider the other as VP at this point. The damage has been too deep and lasting on both sides.
I’d be interested in the source of the 70% statistic you mentioned. I hadn’t heard it was that high. If you have a link, would you mind posting it?
I have heard plenty of claims about Clinton supporters threatening to vote elsewhere if Obama is the nominee, but whether this feeling is real or just posturing is hard to know. Exit interviews with voters now about what they will do in November aren’t exactly reliable. 6 months is a long time to nurse bitterness and disappointment.
Similarly, projections about how voters in key states will vote come November are likely to fluctuate once the general election campaigning begins. There are all sorts of intangibles at work that ought to make us at least a bit hesitant about any of the forecasting going on at present. I’m talking about stuff that none of the candidates has any control over (the economy, the situation in Iraq, etc.) And then there are all the intangibles of the campaigning that will occur (debates, media appearances and gaffes, unforeseen disclosures, relative successfulness of campaign ads, etc.)
That’s a long way of saying, “we’ll have to wait and see,” I know. But we’ll have to wait and see.
Not oblterated, ___ “toast”. Got to be careful with words these days, wouldn’t want to offend anyone’s gentle sensibilities.
Don’t believe that “damage” bull the press and media puts out ERIC. If there is a back room session and Hilary is the pick and Obama is the vice pick, they’ll act like Romeo and Juliet. They are both superb actors. Of course they’d better not play the final scene of Romeo and Juliet.
Check out this link, there is some polling info in it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html?ref=todayspaper
The polls really are useless at this point in the process. Once Shillary is out and running mates are named, then polls will have some credibility.
Your NYT/CBS poll found “Mr. Obama would defeat Mr. McCain by 51 percent to 40 percent among all voters, . . . and Mrs. Clinton would defeat him 53 to 41.”
But, those are POPULAR VOTE numbers. If presidents were elected by popular vote Al Gore would be our current president (and Joe Lieberman would be our current vice president).
It’s electoral votes that elect presidents. Obominable’s chances of winning a majority of electoral votes are not good.
Here’s the thing though, Bob:
Unless you’ve got some pretty convincing data to show that the results of general election forecasting polls done in May correlate pretty well with general election outcomes in November, I think folks have good reason to be suspicion of them.
Assuming some studies have been done from past elections (particularly those in which the nominee for one of the parties is undetermined while the other is not), I’d be really interested in seeing them. That’s a genuine request, so anyone who has these would earn my undying appreciation by linking to them.
It’s clear that you think Obama has no chance at all versus McCain in the general election, but how can you be confident about that based on a poll done in May?
There haven’t been any debates yet between the parties’ nominees, they haven’t yet had any opportunity to make terrible gaffes during the general election campaigning, similarly no new unexpected revelations about the nominees have emerged, and we haven’t even begun to deal with all the variables beyond their control that could affect their electoral chances (the economy, the war, etc.)?
Are you saying that none of these things is likely to matter, but that a poll, taken in May, and based on a sample group of…what? a thousand, two thousand?…will?
I ask this as someone interested more in a McCain/Republican defeat than in a Democratic victory.
So how many of the actual presidential election states will be using computerized voting machines from Diebold et al. again?
You know, the ones that were preset so that ‘0′ for Bush equaled = +20 000. And were so pathetically simple to hack that a team actually proved a chimp could do it…
Anyone want to bet there WON’T be Florida or Ohio style voting shenanigans again this November?
bob k and kem patrick are so jealous they will NOt let any real facts come into play that would not help their jealouscy.. so they ignore facts that makes for a truth and bring in data that does the opposite BUT they pass it on as FACTS that does prove something….
they take the polls that are showing hillary as doing barely better than obama against
mccain…. BUT BUT BUT…. they iGNORE the real facts that prove a important point…. that is how the republicans are trying to lessen obama… cause they KNOW he is the strongest opponent.. cause hillary would energize the repubs base and hillary would have the independants lost and going to the repubs…. and these people IGNORE how if obama chooses barbara boxer as VP the whole womens vote will go to obama…
what the repubs are also doing as well as doing some crossing over to vote for hillary in order to weaken their strongest opponent obama…hillary in real terms is getting maybe 4% more phony votes in the primaries because of this..
AND then we have the repubs ALSO trying to influence to make it LOOK like hillary is the strongest by when the poll people call asking who they will vote for … guess what the repubs who are doing this trick they’ll say clinton and this boosts those polls FALSELY…
but neither bob k or kem patrick wants people to KNOW the truth.. they are immmoral dishonest trolls that run thru forums trying to harm the truth..
bob k and kem are so jealous they are blind to truth..
florida will be penalyze exactly how the repubs penalized florida by cutting their delegate in half… so yes florida will be seated just like how the repugs seated florida.. so that way both seats florida equally … clinton won by 38 delegates over obama with half she will win by 19..
mich will give the uncomitted to obama.. and hillary won by 18 delegates over uncommited and that will also bet cut in half.. to 9 so from both these hillary will gain a total of 28 delegates…. and does nothing to change anything about obama as the winner…
so its over and florida and mich will be seated and counted just like the republicans did them.. they have to have penalty cause if not.. then election primaries would be destroyed..
in 2 weeks after the oregon and ky primaries which obama and hillary will split….. fla and mich will be COUNTED just like the reugs counted their votes…… in HALF… so hillary will get 28 more delegates than obama and obama will still be the winner of over 130 delegates over her… all the supers will explode to obama after that primary and they will have it where the counting of mich and fla those states will put obama over the top of 2025 delegates….
so now you have it …
obama will become a fantastic candidate and will beat the repugs in a landslide…. obama must not choose hillary or edwards as VP has to be a working class white woman and this woman will then be the number one woman in the democrat party this one plus pelosi.. this is the clntons worst nitemare!!!
Since when has the word “obliterate” had an ambiguous meaning? When have only people with higher education used it and understood it?
It’s not a big thousand dollar word. It means to wipe out, annihilate, completely destroy.
Over the HILLary wants to commit genocide on Iranians, for Israel and to make herself seem “tough.” Iran is no threat.
Go away, over the Hillary. It’s over.
“I’d be interested in the source of the 70% statistic you mentioned. I hadn’t heard it was that high. If you have a link, would you mind posting it?”
Actually, KEM pulled that number right out of his ass, just as he did with most of the rest of the “facts” he used to make his “case”; that is, in fact, his regular practice when pimping Hillary and trashing Obama.
KEM’s claim (emphasis his): “OVER 70% of the Hillary suporters say they will NOT vote for Obama if he’s the Demo nominee. Over 70%!! and another 12% say if he’s the Demo nominee, they won’t even bother to vote at all.”
The facts? The actual numbers of Clinton voters who say they’d support McCain over Obama floats between 17% and 28%. Here’s Gallup on the matter:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx
Last night, in Indiana, it was 17%.
“I have heard plenty of claims about Clinton supporters threatening to vote elsewhere if Obama is the nominee, but whether this feeling is real or just posturing is hard to know.”
Most of it is just posturing, but the fact that nearly 1/3 of Clinton’s voters (at the upper end of the scale) say they’d vote for a conservative Republican Bush clone over a liberal Democrat does say everything we need to know about the “progressive” credentials of Clinton voters.
Keep in mind, as well, that Clinton’s voting base is padded with a large number of Republicans who have only crossed over in the primaries in her favor because they want to face her–an easy mark–in the general, and fear facing Obama. This “Limbaugh Effect” crowd has artificially floated Clinton’s campaign for months. Last night, she “won” Indiana only because of them. In that state, 7% of voters openly admitted they were voting for Hillary Clinton but intended to vote for McCain in the fall:
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/05/07/the-limbaugh-effect/
Clinton voters prefer Rush Limbaugh to pick the Democratic candidate.
“Similarly, projections about how voters in key states will vote come November are likely to fluctuate once the general election campaigning begins. There are all sorts of intangibles at work that ought to make us at least a bit hesitant about any of the forecasting going on at present. I’m talking about stuff that none of the candidates has any control over (the economy, the situation in Iraq, etc.) And then there are all the intangibles of the campaigning that will occur (debates, media appearances and gaffes, unforeseen disclosures, relative successfulness of campaign ads, etc.)”
Correct. None of the polls that stage the November elections have any meaning now. It’s worth noting, however, that KEM’s claims, on this matter, were utterly false, as well.
His claim: “Most credible polls show that if Obama is the Demo nominee, he will lose handily to McCain. They also show Hillary will easily beat McCain.”
No such polls exist. Here’s Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll, going back to the beginning of February. Their results pretty much square, give or take a point, with every other poll on the subject:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
It bounces up and down, in and out, someone else on top every day, but nowhere does Obama “lose handily to McCain,” and nowhere does Hillary “easily beat” McCain.
Obama WILL win in November, because Hillary is out, and McCain is a moron.
McCain graduated 894th out of a class of 897 students at the Naval Academy. He blew up his plane on the USS Forrestal during the Vietnam War, killing 134 US servicemen (if his father wasn’t an Admiral, he’d still be in the brig). He crashed 5 planes during the War; the final time, while bombing civilians, by not properly evading a shoulder launched rocket fired by a rice farmer. Captured for 5 years, he was given ‘champagne treatment’ because of Daddy. His ‘torture’ injuries were mainly caused by his crash. Yay. Total. Hero.
If Americans want a senile, unintelligent, screwup, temper-tantrum, dump-the-damaged-first wife to marry the cute beer-heiress President, go for it. Good luck with that Future thing.
If I were you though, I’d vote for the intelligent, thoughtful, vigorous, insightful half-white guy (half-white: for those of you who can’t wrap your pea brains around a ‘full’ black guy being President).
Maybe McLame will visit Iraq to see all the progress, and get captured for five years. First election with one candidate MIA. Could happen.
kem patrick and bob k should be tarred and feathered and run out of dodge they are NOT here TRYING to reason on issues but instead trying to mislead and feed their sick mental needs
what hurt kerry in his race with bush was his marriage to a rich widow… mccain will be hurt badly when it comes out about how he first married a beautiful model.. and then she was maimed in a car wreck and then he divorced her and married a beaty queen that has tons of money…. this will stop voters voting for him in a heartbeat!!
~THADSTONE~ what you just posted about McCain blowing up his
airplane is a load of propaganda bullshit, just like a lot
of the the other crap being posted here. It’s a lie and you’re
spreading it. I sure don’t want to see McCain as our president,
but I wouldn’t tell lies about him. If Obama is the nominee, McCain
will be our next president.
I got the over 70% figure from the TV announcers on CNN covering the
election last night, they got it from exit polls.
It pleases me that people condenm and attack me here, who are so
ignorant, those Like ~Bojanges~, (or Riverman) as he sometimes calls
himself. I sure wouldn’t want anyone to thinkthat I agreed with them.
Thanks to Classic Liberal2 we get some tangible information and numbers instead of arm chair distorted political quarterbacking. The dissension and nasty name calling among some in the two camps does not bode well for anyone’s ability to set this nation on a more principled course. The right wing slime machine has tainted everyone—even progressives smear it on each other. Sad!
Obama is our best shot at saving our country from the Likudniks and that pimp McCain.
The ruling class is in a panic!
BTW ~RIVERMAN BOJANGLES~ your constant sayng that I’m jealous of someone is
getting to be tiresome. In my mind jealousy is as bad as pride and I
never practice either of those sins. I disagree with you on some things
and because I’m not a rabid Obama supporter you insult me and have done
so many times. You want to tar and feather me? I would just love to meet up
with you someday so you could give it a shot.
We come here to learn and to express opinions and insults
like yours only start shit fights and cause disssention. Actually I
believe you, like Dogwagner and a few others are Neo-Con trolls who
actually wish to see McCain win and you want to see Obama as the Demo
nominee so that McCain will win.
BOB K………when was the last time afro-americans HAD A VIABLE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ? mmmmm never ! blacks always have overwhelmingly voted for the democratic presidential nominee ….even if he was WHITE !……i don’t think you understand where i’m coming from……
Repiglickin hacks and trolls have polluted this site
Time heals all wounds.
I was an enthusiastic supporter of John Edwards (still am) and I fought tooth-and-nail with Obama supporters here at CD until Edwards gave up his bid for the nomination. At that time, I thought that there was no way that I could support Obama, but I was wrong. There is no doubt that between Hillary and Barack, Obama is by far the superior candidate and the one with the most progressive values. Barack will destroy McCain in the general, and many of those who say now that they will not vote for him, well, they will see the light long before November. The polls mean nothing now, but after Obama is the nominee and his running mate is named, polls will become more valid. Hillary should drop out now!
Obama ‘08
By the way, McCain is not a war hero.
He, like Bush and Cheney, has been a coward all his life.
The people who say they’re going to vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee are a bunch of back stabbing, two-faced jerks. What a spoiled bunch of babies. Like Hillary, they’re Republican plants bent on destroying the Democrats’ chance at winning in November. They’re one of the reasons there should be a viable 3rd party in order to offset their traitorous actions.
Republicans stick together and vote en bloc for their candidate no matter what kind of an incompetent sociopath he is. Obama is far from being incompetent or a sociopath. We need to do the right thing and not waste votes on a 3rd party candidate. We don’t need McInsane in the White House.
Incidentally, why haven’t the Democrats done anything to prevent another stolen election? Republicans own and operate the electronic Diebold voting machines; there ought to be a law against that. That’s another reason Democrats need to turn out in large numbers, so the Rethuglicans can’t get away with another stolen election by claiming they won because Democrats didn’t vote, because Democrats voted 3rd party, and because Hillary supporters voted for McCain. What does that say about Hillary, by the way? She’s a Republican, and she doesn’t care that she’s damaging the Democratic party AND the country.
“Incidentally, why haven’t the Democrats done anything to prevent another stolen election?”
Beacause they are all on the same damn team!!!!!
I don’t think the HRC supporters threatening to vote for McCain or to stay at home will actually go through with it in the end.
As I said somewhere else, “Six months is a long time to nurse bitterness and disappointment.” They (Bitterness and Disappointment, that is) are two cranky, colicky babies. I can see nursing them a month or so, tops. After that you’ll be wanting to pull a Medea on their bratty asses!
No, with the exception of the Republican spoilers and perhaps some of the so-called Reagan Democrats who voted for HRC and who will vote for Johnny Bomb Bomb, I don’t foresee the threatened defection materializing at anything near to the projected levels.
Still, Obama will no doubt go about trying to court the Reagan Dems hard. He’ll likely choose his VP with this goal in mind, since this is the demographic he’s struggled with the most.
I had earlier floated the idea of him courting John Edwards (who seems to have some success speaking and appealing to this group) but sLiM is probably right that this doesn’t have much of a chance.
Just read a neat link on Norman Soloman’s article, here
at C/D today, “The Fly On The Wall Is The Wall”. Seems as
if Obama has erred a little bit on his claims of where his
campaign money comes from, he says the takes NO PAC
money like Hillary or McCain do.
My My, he has recieved {$131 million } from PACS so far. But
boy oh boy can he ever deliver a speech. Magnificent. All he
needs is a Pan flute as he merrily leads his blinded flock down
the Primrose lane. Some times those roses turn out to be funeral lillies.